Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 10

= November 10 =

Why is Scandinavia so liberal?
--75.33.217.61 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough to venture an answer to this fascinating question, but I would point out that Scandinavia has a political tradition that is largely "liberal" in U.S. terms. (The questioner geolocates to the United States.) U.S. "liberalism" involves what in other political traditions would be called a mix of social Liberalism and social democracy. Why this mix has dominated Scandinavia since the mid-20th century, I too would love to know.  Marco polo (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Typically when people refer to the Nordic countries as "liberal", they're referring to their Mixed economys, high union representation, and extensive social security programs. It's an interesting history.  Scandinavia has been heavily affected by both the Second World War, as well as the Cold War.  After World War II, they occupied an interesting location, being geographically (and in some cases, historically) close to Russia, but also being very connected to Western Europe.  We have several articles that touch of this history, including Economy of Finland, Social security in Finland, Economy of Norway, Economy of Sweden.  You can also learn a lot from the "History of ..." articles as well (not to mention the parent articles themselves). Buddy431 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Historically, the U.S. political spectrum is dominated by two basic interests: social justice and business interests. For people for whom keeping the government out of their wallets is paramount, they tend to be of the party of the right (Republican).  For people for whom correcting social injustices is important, they tend to be of the party of the left (Democrat).  Other interests ping-pong off of these.  For example, because Democrats tend to be pro-choice, in protecting the rights of women over their own bodies, that tends to make people for whom the rights of the fetus are more important Republicans by default, even if the Republican party's actual legislative record shows that they are far more interested in protecting corporate business interests than fetus rights issues.  On the other side, since the Captains of Industry tend to be overwhelmingly Republican, organized labor tends to be Democrat by default even if they aren't particularly interested in social justice issues, if only because labor and management tend to have opposing interests.  Thus you get the so-called "broad coalitions" making up the two main parties: Democrat = Labor + civil rights warriors while Republican = Business + Religious right.  Strange bedfellows indeed.  Why I went through the troubles explaining all of this is because in places like Scandanavia, these issues are not at play.  Scandanavia has, historically, lacked the racial component that existed in America (no slavery, relatively homogenous population compared to the U.S.) that gives the U.S. left it's basic core values, and they also have lacked the sort of corporate history America has (which is not to say they don't have corporations, or politically active corporations, it's just different.)  The result is that the Scandanavian political spectrum is established along an entirely different set of values, which have no correspondance in the U.S., and visa-versa, which is why it looks so different.  The same sort of issues exist when comparing poltical systems from other parts of the world as well; i.e. what constitutes the left and right in, say, Fiji wouldn't necessarily make any sense to someone familiar with politics in Azerbaijan.  -- Jayron  32  02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly because they were the last Europeans to adopt Christianity. Paganism, with its many female deities offered women more freedom than the male-dominated Church.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure it goes back THAT far. These sorts of political developments have a life cycle on the order of a few generations.  See Party system for a general discussion of political party ideologies in various parts of the democratic world.  -- Jayron  32  07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of possible explanations:
 * The countries are small, open economies aligning the interests of the workers with those of the capitalists (workers would not want wages too high, as that would make industries less competitive on the world market). This lead to more class cooperation and less class conflict since the early 1900s
 * A strong Lutheran (Protestant) heritage, giving in particular high literacy at an early point in time, inducing equality of opportunity when "modern society" came along
 * Ethnically homogeneous populations (I'm not sure I believe that one, but it is frequently put forward)
 * Geographies that do not make large land-holdings feasible (except southern Sweden and Denmark); consequently, self-owning farmers became the norm. In addition, large emigration (in particular to North America) during the late 1800s and early 1900s relieved the countries of population pressure. Without emigration, we could imagine that there would have been large groups of poor, landless people
 * All these things lead to low inequality, making it easier to agree on what the original poster calls "liberal" policies.
 * Jørgen (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the agricultural situation as an exception in Denmark as compared to the rest of the Scandinavian countries, one could mention the Danish cooperative movement and the Folk high school movement, both of which allowed for an increasing political awareness of the peasantry from the mid 1800s onward. This probably made up for the Danish lack of a long history of small independent farmholders (up until early 1800s it had mainly been large estates and tenant peasants). And they eventually managed to gain government control in 1901. Regarding the emigration to the new world, as compared with the emigration from Sweden and Norway, the figures for Denmark are also fairly low. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And I agree with Jayron32 that paganism has nothing to do with it. The intermediate period in Scandinaniavian history between the 1000s and modern history has mostly been a period of autocratic governments, conservatism and militarism. The notable exception being that very interesting time in Swedish history called the Age of Liberty, where one could infer, perhaps anachronistically, a lot of the elements that make up modern "liberal" society - (some) women's suffrage in voting matters, (relatively) free press, (at least nominal) political influence of all estates. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jørgen's points, I think, do an excellent job of explaining this phenomenon for Sweden, Norway, and perhaps Finland. Denmark differs in the historical predominance of large landed estates and a disfranchised peasantry as well as in the lack of substantial emigration as a "safety valve".  That situation seems to have changed during the 19th century though with urbanization and the rise of the urban bourgeoisie in Copenhagen and other cities to power relative to Denmark's landed aristocracy, which lost relative power during that century.  By the early 20th century, Denmark's political situation was similar to those of the other Nordic countries.  This suggests that emigration was not such an important factor in Sweden or Norway.  Regarding ethnic homogeneity, Jørgen doubts its importance, but, from a U.S. perspective, it seems quite crucial.  In the United States, social democracy has historically failed to gain traction because, to put it in blunt class terms, the ruling class has been able to coopt the racial anxieties and resentments of the white working class in order to bring about the opposition of the white working class to social democratic measures that could benefit the black working class.  This has been especially true in the U.S. South (not coincidentally the region where blacks make up the highest share of the population).  The Democratic Party—the party whose principles have historically included mild social democracy—held the strong loyalty of the white working class, especially in the South, until it began to back racial equality.  As soon as the Democratic Party took this stand, in the 1960s, it almost completely lost the support of the white working class in the South and much of the support of the white working class in other regions.  The more authoritarian, militaristic, arguably plutocratic Republican Party was able to subtly present itself (somewhat deceptively) as the defender of white privilege.  Because Scandinavia lacked this racial antagonism, the owners of capital have not been able to divide and dominate the working classes there.  Beyond this, until very recently, the owners of capital and even the upper bourgeoisie in the United States were largely Protestants of British or Germanic descent.  Many looked down on people even from other European backgrounds.  They therefore saw other Americans as not really "their kind of people" and therefore not worthy of social benefits.  This kind of ethnic division did not exist in Scandinavia until recently with immigration since the late 20th century.  Not coincidentally, the rise of immigration in Scandinavia has eroded social solidarity there and promoted the rise of rather illiberal anti-immigrant political groups.  Marco polo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to throw in one more hypothesis on this, and this is a feature that might distinguish Scandinavia not only from the United States but also from many other parts of Europe: community solidarity rooted in religious homogeneity and historic churchgoing patterns. Historically, the churches in predominantly Christian countries were the sources of most forms of charity and social welfare until the 20th century.  The United States has always had multiple religious divisions, both between Christians and Jews and among Christian denominations.  Beyond this, U.S. Christian denominations and congregations have historically been segmented by class.  The very wealthy tended to attend a few Episcopal, Congregational, or Presbyterian churches in a few coastal cities.  They largely looked down on Jews, Catholics, and even Baptists and did not see why their charity should extend to the undeserving members of less enlightened churches (or synagogues).  In Europe, some countries, such as Germany and Britain, have had religious division.  Even in Catholic Europe, while all may have belonged to the same denomination, the rich tended to have their own congregations in places like Versailles, Rome, Milan, or Madrid.  In Scandinavia, by contrast, historically everyone was Lutheran, and wealthier families typically attended congregations with considerable income diversity, which may have given them a greater feeling of obligation to their less fortunate compatriots. While religion ceased to play a central role in Scandinavian cultures during the early to mid-20th century, this feeling of community solidarity and/or mutual obligation may have survived as part of the culture. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From my perspective you would ask: "Why is the US so right-wing?". I guess that the OP and most of the people reading this are from North America. 92.29.125.32 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's a much better question, yes. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought Jayron had some excellent analysis. I would add a few thoughts. First of all what is meant by "liberal" is not clear. There is Social liberalism and Classical liberalism which roughly correspond to Democrats and Republicans (U.S.). The Liberal tradition goes back to Locke and the US founding fathers before there were Ds and Rs. Socialists wouldn't call themselves "Liberal" in this regard. Second of all, the number one reason for Scandinavia being the way it is (i.e. whatever the original question poser meant) is EDUCATION. Scandinavian countries have a very high level of education, and that makes a culture tend toward communitarian, anti-fascist, anti-corporatist, and humanist values.Greg Bard (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than that. Students in the Canadian province of Alberta perform exceptionally well in international tests, yet Alberta is one of the developed world's most conservative jurisdictions in many senses, behind only some U.S. states. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reactions to the Sweden general election, 2010 may partly answer this query.Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In what sense? --Soman (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

L'internationale
Hello. Where can I find a freely-accessible online recording of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th stanzas of the French song L'Internationale? I've already found the 1st, 2nd, and 6th. Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the links from our article The Internationale? DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Titans v. Olympians
It strikes me, while reading the article about Greek goddess Selene v. Artemis, that the Titans were the pantheon of some previous ethnic group, who lost power to some other arriving group. I guess they might be both Indo-European, but it occurs to me that there may be a historical or sociological explanation for why one set of gods supplanted the other, esp. since some of the gods (like Selene v. Artemis) seem to overlap. I note that there are many Indo-European cognates for Zeus, but not Cronus. This makes me wonder if the Titans were non-Indo-European in origin.

"Like most moon deities, Selene plays a fairly large role in her pantheon, which preceded the Olympic pantheon. However, Selene, a Titan, was eventually largely supplanted by Artemis, an Olympian; the Romans similarly deemed Luna predecessor to Diana. "

This seems to imply that Selene used to be fairly popular, but then the Cult of Artemis took over, or something. Wouldn't change in power among human groups cause change of power amongs their gods? John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Something like that did happen, there was some group of people living in the area of Greece before Greek-speakers arrived; they may have been different Indo-Europeans, but they may have been something else. We have some sparse info about this at Pre-Greek substrate and Pelasgians, the name the ancient Greeks gave to those people. It also happened within Greek-speaking groups; there was (well, maybe) a Dorian invasion, which affected mythology and demography. I'm sure there are plenty of books about this subject, but one that springs to mind is The Greek Myths by Robert Graves. It's full of crazy speculation and it's not really a reliable source, but if I remember correctly Graves talks about this very idea that you've had. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You remember correctly; Graves talks quite a bit about this. I don't know if I'd classify it as crazy speculation, but it's definitely speculation based upon his own interpretations of myths, which is a pretty dicey way of reconstructing history. Our article at The Greek Myths talks a bit about its reception among other classicists (who also seldom get confused with professional historians, FWIW). 64.235.97.146 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Titanomachy mythologizes the archaic conflict that was resolved in favor of the Olympians. Robert Graves reads pre-literate socio-political struggles into the background context of Greek mythology: most scholars would agree in general, and then come to blows over the details.--Wetman (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is "sworn auditor"?
Pursuant to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 53 (Right to Refuse Testimony on Professional Grounds):

"'(1)	The following persons may also refuse to testify: ..."

"3.	Attorneys, patent attorneys, notaries, certified public accountants, sworn auditors, tax consultants and tax representatives, doctors, dentists, psychological psychotherapists, psychotherapists specializing in the treatment of children and juveniles, pharmacists and midwives, concerning information entrusted to them or which became known to them in this capacity. In this respect other members of a Bar Association are deemed to be attorneys; ...'"

Who are the "sworn auditors"? Do the term define the auditors who are sworn in? Thank you.

182.52.97.6 (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In German, it's Wirtschaftsprüfer, basically an accountant who operates in an official capacity as auditor of corporate accounts. "Sworn" here means, I think, that they have taken a professional oath. The German WP has more.--Rallette (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some details in the post above are unclear. IMHO Wirtschaftsprüfer are Certified Public Accountants but 'sworn auditors' seem to be something else. Flamarande (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found the German article but some details escape me: the sworn auditors aren't regular Certified Public Accountant (German article) but I don't understand the precise difference (one of the small differences seems to be that they can't audit the books of large companies). The article clearly states that no new sworn auditors are allowed since 2005 and that this job is going to default to the Certified Public Accountant (please notice that I'm not vouching for accuracy of the article). Flamarande (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Vereidigter Buchprüfer it is.--Rallette (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Children's City Maps in Canada
Hi there, I wonder, if in the cities of Canada so called Children's city maps are common. In Germany we have such Kinderstadtpläne which many cities in Germany have designed for children and their families for better getting along in their cities/neighborhoods. Are these special city maps known in Canada or not? Are they perhaps named otherwise? Greets --193.174.232.30 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a special name for them, but I have seen maps like that in Canada. I've seen them in museums, for example, or maps of a city labelled with sites of interest for children and families. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Norman surname
Would anybody happen to know how this Norman surname is pronounced: de Neufmarché? I need to add it to an article. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say something like "deh-noof-MAR-shay" (the de is not quite "duh", its a shorter vowel than that, and the é is not exactly "ay", it's a monophthong, not a diphthong, so its said more like a cross between the vowel sounds in the english words "bay" and "big". It's hard to explain french vowels unless you've practiced saying them.)  I'm also terrible at IPA.  (Unless you mean This IPA.)  I like that one.  You may want to ask at the language reference desk instead of here.  -- Jayron  32  16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Quasi-standard French IPA transcription [də nœfmaʁʃe]... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A frenchman would adjust Jayron's pronunciation very slightly by making the "noof" syllable into "nerf". Gurumaister (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, a Frenchman would phonetically spell it neuf. It is only an Englishman who would use nerf as a phonetic spelling.  In most parts of North America, that spelling would be further from the French pronunciation than noof because it would insert a consonant.  Marco polo (talk)
 * Right, if the double-o is taken as in book, then noof is actually pretty close. The problem is that I want to read it like the double-o in toot.  I can't think of any way to make that clear with respelling pronunciation.  Maybe it depends on how you pronounce roof (I use the "toot" vowel). --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it may also be relevant that I do not round my lips when pronouncing book. Someone who uses a rounded vowel for book might find it not so close to the vowel in neuf. --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already enquired at the Languages desk as I need the 12th century Norman pronunciation which would have been vastly different from standard French.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual panic
I stumbled upon this article today; it seems rather ridiculous to me. I read through the history of it and looked over the Gay panic defense article. Is this really something any court (at least in America) would take seriously? 129.3.178.208 (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * U.S. courts operate on a combination of written law, common law, and case law (this is quite different from countries that operate on strictly civil codes, such as Code Napoleon). As such, it is quite hard to say what a court would take seriously.  All you need is a lawyer willing to try it, a judge willing to let it go on, and a jury with a sympathetic ear.  There have been stranger defenses.  -- Jayron  32  16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I marked if for a merge. we can discuss the issue further over at its talk page.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it rape?
If someone consents to sex with someone based on a lie, is it rape? For example, if a woman consents to have sex with a man because he leads her to believe he is more successful than he really is, and she is attracted to that supposed success, but later finds out he was lying about it, and she certainly wouldn't have consented to sex had she known the truth, then is she a victim of rape? Can consent be revoked retroactively? This is a serious question. Please no answers of "it is certainly wrong/slimy/douchebaggy" because I don't think anyone would dispute that. My question is "Is it rape?" The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A theft/confidence scam analogy may be apt. Is a person who tricks someone else out of their money any less guilty of theft than someone who forcibly takes someone else's money? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a reason why robbery, theft, and fraud are different crimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking whether something is a crime requires a jurisdiction so you can know which laws to use. See rape by deception for some cases.  --Sean 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rape by deception is what I was looking for. Note, I have undone the archiving as this was not a request for legal advice. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This case may be of interest – an Arab man was found guilty of rape after he had sex with an Israeli lady who was under the impression that he was a Jew. It's especially interesting as it's not equivalent to the confidence-trickery analogy: her decision not to have sex with an Arab was based largely on racist principles, of which one should strongly disapprove, but he was nevertheless involved in deception. Complicated one! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 19:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, it was in that article already! Sorry... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something that I heard about that case is actually what prompted me to ask the question. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is all presented from the perspective of the woman being conned, but I saw another perspective, that of a woman who performs sex for money. There is a very old word for that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very thoughtful discussion of this topic. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The technicalities of rape (the "edge cases", if you will) can be quite complicated. Here's a case going before the Supreme Court of Canada right now regarding a couple that had engaged in what was supposedly consensual rape-play involving an apparently voluntary loss of consciousness. Can sex be consensual if one of the partners is unable to protest at the time of intercourse? How far in advance can consent be given? It seems like a bizarre one-in-a-million case, but the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund has pointed out that a not-guilty verdict could greatly affect the enforcement of rape within marriage laws. Does a guilty verdict mean that even more mainstream sexual relations require constant and continual consent, even months after the fact? A messy, messy, case. Matt Deres (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You linked to marital rape, and then ask if this recent case of dubious consent could mean "mainstream sexual relations require constant and continual consent, even months after the fact?" I'm assuming your meaning 'even months into a sexual relationship', but took a moment to get there As the marital rape article says, it is already the case in the US and much of the world that you do indeed have to have consent for each act, even months (or years) into a relationship. And rightly so: just because someone wanted sex with you yesterday, doesn't mean they want sex with you right now, and they have a right to refuse that, without you assuming. Did you mean to say something else? It sounds like the concern is for what a not-guilty verdict would mean, not what a guilty verdict would mean. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant months after the sex took place. In the linked case, the woman only complained months after the incident allegedly took place, apparently as the result of an unrelated argument. If the man is found guilty, what does that do to anyone in a position of regret over their actions a month ago? Would all tie-up games played between apparently consenting adults be retroactively classified as sexual assault? The spousal rape concern runs the other way; LEAF is concerned that a not guilty verdict could be used to roll back the relatively recent laws in place to protect against marital rape. If I understand it correctly, their position is that if consent can be given in advance, it could mean that a woman in a marital relationship has necessarily given prior consent purely as an act of being married. Hence, a woman complaining of spousal rape could have her case thrown out because she had, at one time, given her consent. I don't think that's necessarily so, but I can see their concern. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a case in U.S. in the 1980s where a woman had sex with a man perfectly willingly at the time, under the misunderstanding (intentionally created by him) that he was his identical twin, and the district attorney said that there might be difficulty finding a clear law under which to prosecute (not sure how that case turned out). AnonMoos (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ref. Desk cannot and will not answer about any particular alleged rape. The article Rape defines it as "sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent." which is almost always interpreted as "that person's consent at the time". Rape is a seriously under-reported crime, not least because the conviction rate following rape allegations is alarmingly low. The victim in reality has the multiple burdens of convincing a court of who is the culprit, what was the act, and of their non-consensuality to it. Simply casting doubt on the non-consensularity will often gain an aquittal. A court that ab initio is sceptical of the victim will likely be convinced only by strong evidence that sex was protested from its very start, because without exculpatory witnesses any suspicion that the plaintiff encouraged or enjoyed the intercourse sinks their case. The claim "I only decided it was rape later when I learned something" is likely to fall on deaf ears, regardless of whether a non-existent witness would conclude the intercourse was rape. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is covered in most first year criminal law courses in American law schools. The general rule is that fraud in the inducement is not rape, whereas fraud in the factum is. In other words, a man can trick a woman into having sex with him (by claiming he's rich, or famous, or whatever) and as long as she understands that she's actually having sex, it's not considered rape. On the other hand, if the woman is tricked so that she doesn't even realize she's having sex (for example, the man claims he's performing a medical procedure) this would be considered rape. Obviously I'm just assuming a man is raping a woman for the ease of explanation. --GreatManTheory (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson Quote
The phrase "The war to end war" (or "The war to end all wars") is typically associated with Woodrow Wilson. Our article (the first one I linked) says that he only actually said this phrase once. I'm having trouble finding him saying it at all. Can anyone provide me with the source of this quote (from Wilson, that is. I'm well aware that Wells made use of the phrase earlier). Buddy431 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Memoirs of Wilson's second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, he said to her in August 1919: "I promised our soldiers, when I asked them to take up arms, that it was a war to end wars; and if I do not do all in my power to put the Treaty in effect, I will be a slacker and never be able to look those boys in the eye." Perhaps he did use that phrase in 1917, or perhaps this is his sole usage.  I'll look further. Antiquary (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Think the quote more often associated with Wilson is that WWI would be a war to make the world safe for democracy... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

approximate ticket cost form Paris to Brussels or vice versa?
If you buy your ticket like 3-7 days in advance, how much would the fast train between Brussels and Paris cost? An approximate price is okay. Also, how long is the trip: I read somewhere that it is approximately 1 hour 10 minutes, is that accurate? Thanks. 92.229.13.29 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a rough search on the TGV website, which suggested £60 ($100) each way. 1h20 was its timetabled time, so your source is approximately correct. To be any more specific, I think someone whose actually done this might be required. Cheaper trains (£45, $75) typically took 2 hours, with a 30 minutes change in Lille. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the SNCF website and found prices between €53 ($73) and €64 ($88) for a one-way (single) journey 7 days from today. The direct fast train takes 1 hour, 20 minutes.  Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thalys suggests from 44 to 138 euros one way.  Grsz 11  02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Eurostar starting at 45 pounds.  Grsz 11  02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? The Eurostar connects Paris and Brussels with London, not with each other. --Anonymous, 23:55 UTC, November 11, 2010.
 * The Eurostar website will quote you for and sell you tix Paris-Brussels, but the service you travel on is a Thalys. DuncanHill (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Book about an Italian Priest
My mother wants to find the title of a humourous book that was popular in the UK in the 1950s. It is about an Italian village where the parish priest is always in conflict with the mayor and leading citizens who are communists. The priest has long conversations with the crucifix in the church, from which he gains devine inspiration to outwit his parishoners. It rings a slight bell with me - I may have seen a film or TV adaptation. Can anyone help please? Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don Camillo. I was thinking of these books earlier today, as it happens. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tagishsimon. It was the 1980 BBC TV adaptation that I remember. Alansplodge (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a little more information on the cast and production details here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Childhood novels
I'm trying to remember the title of a novel I read as a child. The story centered round a family living in a city controlled by a number of deity-like siblings. The siblings control different parts of the city like e.g. sanitation, the police, energy, water, etc. They were all fighting for influence over the city, and the family's house was in the centre of the conflict. I read it during the 90s, so it has to have been published at least before 1998. I read it in Swedish, but I think it was originally published in English or German. I think the author was female.

I think the same author wrote a novel about a dog, that turned out to be an alien looking for a green star.

'''Also looking for a series of Treasure Island style "boy-adventure" books. I think the main character was called Wilde.'''

Thanks in advance. P. S. Burton (talk)  22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of the works of Diana Wynne Jones? She wrote Archer's Goon and Dogsbody. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. Thank you, I've been looking for this for so long. P. S. Burton  (talk)  23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. She's one of my favourite authors, and it's nice to point someone back to her. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Found the Wilde series on my own, turns out it was called Johan Vilde P. S. Burton  (talk)  13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)